Globalization and the spread of capitalism: material resonances

Horning, A., & Schweickart, E. (2016). Globalization and the spread of capitalism: material resonances. Post-Medieval Archaeology, 50(1), 34-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00794236.2016.1169490

Published in:Post-Medieval Archaeology

Document Version:Peer reviewed version

Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal:Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal

Publisher rights© Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology 2016.This work is made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

General rightsCopyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or othercopyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associatedwith these rights.

Take down policyThe Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made toensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in theResearch Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact openaccess@qub.ac.uk.

Download date:13. Sep. 2020

GlobalisationandtheSpreadofCapitalism:MaterialResonances

AudreyHorning(Queen’sUniversityBelfast)andEricSchweickart(UniversityofTennessee)

Wordcount(includingnotesandbibliography):

Abbreviatedtitle:Globalisationandcapitalism

Revisedfinalmanuscriptsubmitted:25January2016

Addressforcorrespondence:

ProfessorAudreyHorning

SchoolofGeography,ArchaeologyandPalaeoecology

Queen’sUniversityBelfast

BelfastBT71NN

NorthernIreland

a.horning@qub.ac.uk

GlobalisationandtheSpreadofCapitalism:MaterialResonances

ByAUDREYHORNINGandERICSCHWEICKART

SUMMARY: The intertwined processes of globalisation and capitalism are fundamentally

material in expression and are central to understandings of themodernworld (however

defined).Overthelastfiftyyears,post-medievalarchaeologistshaveengageddirectlywith

thematerialityofthesebroad-scaleprocesses: initially fromthestandpointofempirically-

drivendescriptivestudies,and latterly tomore interpretativeapproacheswhichchallenge

and stretch disciplinary boundaries. As later historical archaeology is increasingly

characterisedbyatheoreticallyandgeographicallydiversesetofpractices,insightsintothe

material resonancesof globalisation and capitalismhavebecome increasing sophisticated

andmorebroadlyrelevanttothepresentday.

INTRODUCTION

Considerations of globalisation and capitalism fundamentally underpin understandings of

thepost-medievalworld.Themovementof ideas,goodsandpeople,whilealwayspartof

thehumanexperience,markedlyacceleratedfromthe15thcenturyonwards,influencedby

maritime technological advancements and the emergence of new forms of exchange

relations and understandings of alienability, abstraction, and commoditisation that

supported and defined colonial expansion. Since the first issue of Post-Medieval

Archaeology in1967, scholarspublishing in the journalhaveexplored the ramificationsof

capitalism and globalisation by examining their material signatures and highlighting the

manner inwhichtheemergenceofmodernitywasfundamentallymaterial incharacter. In

morerecentyears,scholarshiphasfocusedovertlyuponthecultural impactsofcapitalism

and globalisation, as the discipline of post-medieval/later historical archaeology more

generally has expanded to become truly global in content and context, as well as more

explicitlytheorised.

As many commentators have noted, post-medieval archaeology in its formative years

developed a reputation for grounded, empirical studies of objects, buildings, and

landscapes:inessence,studyingtheproductsratherthantheprocessesofcapitalism.1Rich

in detail and content, these studies tended to eschew application of the broader

interpretive frameworksmore readily embraced by anthropological colleagues across the

Atlantic. Capitalism in particular has long provided a guiding interpretive framework for

North American historical archaeology, to the extent that the discipline has often been

labelledthearchaeologyofcapitalism2.Bycontrast, itwouldnotbeuntilthe21stcentury

thatthetermcapitalismorcapitalistbegantoappearwithanyregularitywithinarticles in

Post-Medieval Archaeology, with only a handful of appearances in the 1980s and 1990s

(principally inthereference list ratherthan inthetext)3,andnoneatall inthe1960sand

1970s.Infact,theoriginalacceptedtimeframeforpost-medievalarchaeologysawitending

withtheadventofindustrialism,andbyextensiontheriseofmanagerialcapitalism.

Moreprecisely,assuggestedbyLawrenceButlerintheopeningeditorialofthefirstissueof

Post-Medieval Archaeology, the period of interest for the Society for Post-Medieval

Archaeologyendedwith‘theopeningofJosiahWedgwood’sfactoryatEtruria’.4Thisevent

isperhapsthebestknownexampleoftheemergenceofindustrialcapitalism,completewith

Wedgwood’sinnovativerationalisedproductionsystem,butitisasurprisingcut-offdatefor

a society that hademerged froma specialist ceramics study group, and at oddswith the

interests of later historical archaeologists today. The Stoke pottery industry and its

considerable archaeological, architectural, and documentary legacies subsequently

supportedawiderangeof fruitful studiesnotonly intoprocessesofpotterymanufacture

and the global distribution of Staffordshire wares, but also into the daily lives and

experiencesofallthoseworkinginthepotteries,relatedindustries(suchasflintmills)and

along the transportation networks, including canals, railways, and roads, which were

integraltotheindustry’ssuccess.5

Industrialcapitalismmayhaveoriginallybeenoff limits,butwhatofthereorderingofthe

landscapeviaagrariancapitalism,orthemercantilecapitalism,whoseseedswerefirstsewn

inRenaissance Italy, thatbegan to knit theworld together from the15th century?While

onefindsfewovertreferencestocapitalismitselfinscholarshippublishedinthejournalin

the1960s-1980s,wewouldarguethatthesefoundationalstudiesnonethelesscontributed

measurably to our understandings of the importance of the transition from feudal to

mercantileeconomies thathave latterly informedmore interpretive, synthetic studies.By

way of example, it would be impossible to discuss either the economic penetration or

cultural ramifications of the tobacco tradewithout utilising the painstaking research into

clay tobacco pipe bowl chronology, stem bore analysis andmaker’smarks undertaken in

these early publications.6 As early as 1969, Adrian Oswald noted how the re-export of

tobacco fromPlymouth to theNetherlands in theearly17th centurywas reflected in the

presenceofDutchpipesinPlymouthassemblagesaswellastheemergenceoflocally-made

pipes after the Dutch fashion, thereby using the accumulated knowledge about

internationalpipemakingstylestocommentonthefiercecompetitionbetweentheDutch

andtheEnglishovertobaccomarkets.7

As all the authors in this special editionhighlight, post-medieval archaeologyhas evolved

andbroadeneditsfocustoincludeawiderangeofinterpretativeframeworksandembrace

more diverse theoretical perspectives. Given that both of us practice historical/ post-

medievalarchaeologyonbothsidesoftheAtlanticandhavebeentrainedinbothAmerican

and European approaches, we argue that the unique datasets and perspectives of post-

medieval archaeology, particularly as expressedon thepagesof this journalover the last

fifty years, is of considerable value in complementing North American scholarship by

similarlychallengingandcomplicatinghowwedealwithcapitalismandglobalisation.That

said,post-medievalarchaeologystillexhibitsatendencytofocusonthe‘small-scaleandthe

local’ rather than striving formultiscalar analyses, as observed byMatthew Johnson in a

2006overview.8 Inthisarticlewehighlightbothstudiesthatdoengagebroadlywhilealso

seekingtohighlightthevalueandpotentialofmicroscalestudiestocontributetodebates

overcapitalismcolonialism,andglobalisationmorebroadly.

CAPITALISMANDPOST-MEDIEVALARCHAEOLOGY

Capitalist behaviours did not emerge anew immediately in the wake of the Columbian

venture, traditionally taken as the start date for historical archaeology, but clearly have

mucholderanddeeperroots inmedievalEurope.9Whilerecognitionofthistimedepth is

hardly new, there have been relatively few efforts to critically examine the relationship

betweenmedievalandpost-medievalEuropeanpoliticaleconomiesfromanarchaeological

pointofviewthatcouldcomplementthegrowingnumberofstudiesthatareengagingwith

the complexities of non-European socioeconomic formulations and their concomitant

influenceoncolonialsocieties.10Moreover,anypresumptionsaboutthetotalisingcharacter

of capitalism, and the attendant Improvement ethic, are challenged by evidence from

Europewherenon-capitalistexchangepracticesandculturalbehaviourspersistwellintothe

19th century, the result not of geographic isolation, but of local circumstances and

priorities.11Infact,whatemergesfromaconsiderationofthelastfiftyyearsofscholarship

in post-medieval archaeology is the remarkable diversity of people’s experiences of the

changeswroughtbytheforcesofcapitalismandnascentglobalisation.Whileclearlynoone

was unaffected by the major socio-political and economic changes attendant upon the

emergence of capitalism, its grasp was neither immediate nor complete. Nor were

individuals, families, and communities wholly powerless in the face of these changes.

Surprising insights have arisen froman array of both urban and rural archaeological case

studiesthathighlightthewaysinwhichdifferentsocialgroupsendeavouredtocontroltheir

engagementwithchangingmarketforces.

Broadly defined, capitalism is an economic system inwhich themeans of production are

heldandfundedprivately inorder togenerate furtherprofit.Thosewhocannotaffordto

invest instead sell their labour in return for wages. Labour thus becomes an alienable

commodity-somethingwithanexchangevalue-distinguishing labourrelationsfromthose

of a feudal economy, whereby a set of mutual obligations knit together labourers and

landowners. Increasingly, land, resources and nature itself became commodified with

uniform systems of measurement and valuation. However, the emergence of agrarian

capitalism, traditionally marked in England by the enclosing of fields and shift towards

intensifiedpastoralism,wasalong,gradual,andevenincompleteprocess.Thesporadicand

piecemeal nature of enclosure in particular is thrown into sharp relief by archaeological

studies, as argued by Richard Newman, challenging the traditional perspective from

economichistoryofarelativelystraightforwardprocessoftransition.12

WhilesomeEnglishlandswereenclosedasearlyasthe15thcenturytoincreaseproduction

andprofitabilitylinkedtothewooltrade,othersremainasopenfieldstoday,asatLaxtonin

Nottinghamshire. InNorthumberland,sporadicenclosurethroughouttheseventeenthand

eighteenth centuries resulted in the wholesale reordering and effective abandonment of

medieval villages such as Clarewood and east Matfen by 1702, the results of improving

activitiesbyanentrepreneurial landowner.13Agrariancapitalismmustalsobeunderstood

withinthecontextofthephilosophyofimprovementmoregenerally,atopicthathasbeen

very productively explored through an archaeological lens. The ethos of Improvement,

defined as ‘a cross-cutting ethic, directed not only at the improvement of agricultural

production...butalsoatthemoral,intellectualandphysicalimprovementoftheself,ofthe

labouring people, of society, of production and of the human environment’ shaped the

materialremainsofbuildings,institutions,burials,landscapesandsettlements.14

The principles of the Improvement ideology played out on the landscape in often highly

contentious ways. The controversial clearances of parts of the Scottish highlands and

islands, still strongly resonant in local memory, are marked by clusters of abandoned

dwellings in the rural landscape.One such example, the site of Arichonan (Fig. 1) on the

slopesofGleanna’Ghaolbhan inNorthKnapdale, isnowa scheduledancientmonument

consistingofaclusterof tenruinoushousesaccompaniedbysheepfanks,enclosuresand

laneways.The inhabitantsof this township, first settledsometimebefore thecloseof the

17th century, were evicted from their homes on the Poltalloch Estate to make way for

sheep.Homesandgardenswererepurposedtohousethestock,andanimprovinglandlord

hadanewdwellingconstructedwithinthesettlementfortheshepherd.Instarkcontrastto

the single story, cruck-roofed stone dwellings that housed the township’s families, the

shepherd’shousewastwostoreysinheight,itsdoorsandwindowsdetailedwithschist,and

heatedbyafullyenclosedgableendchimney.15

There isnodoubt that theenforced reorderingof theArichonan landscapeandcountless

otherstosuittheneedsofagrariancapitalism,morally justifiedthroughtheImprovement

ethic,wasaculturallydisruptiveprocess.However, itwouldbefollytosimplypresentthe

inhabitants of regions like the Scottish Highlands as either pawns of external economic

forces,orassomehowpreviouslyimmunetochange.Resistancetocapitalistformulationsin

theBritishIslesisnothardtoidentify,asconvincinglyarguedbyBillFrazer,JamesSymonds,

and Charles Orser.16 However, such actions also must be understood through critical

consideration of local historical contexts which more often than not challenges stark

constructions of domination and resistance as the primary impacts of capitalism. As

demonstratedbyChrisDalglish,interpretationsofHighlandsocietyasstaticandtraditional

priortotheperiodoftheclearances is fundamentallyahistoricaland ignoresconsiderable

evidenceforreorderingoflandedestatesandHighlandsocietymoregenerallyfromatleast

the16thcenturyonwards.Theincreasingquantificationandcommodificationoflandcanbe

readnotonly inthefencingof fieldsandclearingof forests,butalso inelitearchitecture.

The addition of viewing galleries to Highland castles, starting around 1550, reflects ‘the

beginnings of a new attitude to landscape, reconceived as commodity, as something not

lived,butobjectified fromadistance.’17Changes in the interiorofHighlandcastlesmirror

the same contemporarymovement toward privacy through the elimination of open halls

and the division of space that Matthew Johnson has termed closure and identified as

occurringinthesouthofEnglandinthesameperiod.18

The extent to which such ideas permeated all levels of society remains a topic of some

debate.Fordecadesarchaeologistshavepointedtothecontinuingproductionofhandbuilt

coarse earthenware pottery, known as craggan ware, in parts of the western Isles as

indicativeof cultural conservatismand isolation,given that the formhas itsorigins in the

IronAge.19Butpotterymakersdonotoperate in a void. Even in abarter economy, craft

producersrelyupondemand.Forself-awareHebrideanpottersinthe19thcentury,demand

moreoften thannot came from ‘outsiders’ seeking a piece of ‘authentic’ tradition,while

theyalsoadaptedtheirpracticestonewideas,asmadeabundantlyclearinanobservation

madebyArthurMitchellonavisitin1863:‘Expectingavisitfromcuriousstrangers,proudof

herskill,andanxioustodisplayit,ourBarvaspotterhadpreparedforus,inadditiontothe

craggans,someimitationsofStaffordshireware,andsomemodelsofanimals.’20Continuity

ofmaterialpracticesmaybeasmuchamatterofconsciouschoiceinthefaceofalternatives

as it is evidence of the incomplete penetration of capitalist forces. Disentangling the

commodificationofHighland identity in the18thand19thcentury fromtheactualitiesof

individual and community experience remains key to understanding the extension of

capitalismandEnlightenmentideologiestoalllevelsofsociety.

Dalglish’s study reveals that Highland elites were just as influenced by Renaissance

architecture and ideologies aswere their contemporaries in England. But itwas not only

new architectural fashions and changing understandings of land as a commodity that

influencedHighlanders,asdemonstratedbytheremarkablecareerofRandallMacDonnell,

thefirstearlofAntrim.NotwithstandinghisCatholicism,MacDonnell,Scottishbybirthbuta

prominentlandholderinthenorthofIreland,gainedthepatronageoftheProtestantJames

I (VI of Scotland) in theearly yearsof the17th century.MacDonnell transformedhimself

fromawarleaderoncealliedwiththeGaelicIrishfightingagainsttheEnglishinIrelandtoa

principalproponentandbeneficiaryof theUlsterPlantation, James I’seffort to transform

thenorthofIrelandintoalandpeopledbyloyalProtestantBritonsbyimposingasystemof

English-styletowns,villagesandcultivatedlandscapes.21

Like theCampbellsdiscussedbyDalglish,MacDonnell transformedhisprincipal residence,

the 15th-century Dunluce castle (Fig. 2), into a Renaissancemanor house featuring large

windows, soaring chimneys, and accompanied by a Mediterranean-inspired loggia and

formal gardens in notably optimistic defiance of its exposed position on a basalt outcrop

highabovetheIrishSea.Signifyinghisownenthusiasticembraceofnewlyemergingideasof

both mercantilism and civic society, MacDonnell built a town at Dunluce complete with

pavedstreetsandstonehousesintendedtoserveasaprofitableentrepôt.

Such activities were paralleled on the other side of the Atlantic at Jamestown, where

colonialelitesattemptedtoconstructanEnglishtownthatwouldnotonlybestowuponthe

struggling colony a sense of order and civility, but would bring wealth through the

commoditisation and exploitation of natural resources.22 MacDonnell’s activities could

readilybeemployedasanexemplaroftheinexorablecrushofproto-capitalistideologieson

the lives of the non-elite. But in reality, MacDonnell and other Ulster Planters were

dependentupon theexistingpopulationasmuchasupon thesettlers (Catholicaswellas

Protestant) that he managed to lure from primarily MacDonnell territories in Scotland.

Moreover,asawareasMacDonnellwasofchangingfashionsandideologies,hisendeavour

tousherinsomeversionofwhatwemightseeascapitalistmodernitythroughspeculative

urban development was fundamentally flawed: his maritime entrepôt and idealised

plantationcentrehadnoviableharbour.Newideasandexperimentswerenomatchforthe

imposingcliffsthathadlongprotectedthecastlefromattacksfromthesea.23

Aswelookbackwardintimetoelucidatetheoriginsofcapitalistmodernity,andteaseout

theevidenceforproto-capitalistactivitysuchasthatofMacDonnell, it iscriticaltobearin

mind that people in the past could not predict the future. Inmany instances, theywere

unsure or unclear about the outcome of their decisions, whereas from our removed

perspectivewetendtoonlyseetheactionsandeventsthatappeartoleaddirectlytowhere

wearetoday.MacDonnell’sfaileddevelopmentisakeycaseinpoint,asisthestoryofthe

largerefforttoreformthenorthofIrelandthroughtheimportationofloyalBritishsettlers.

Longpainted as a starkprocess that imposed capitalist inequality uponadisenfranchised

pastoral Gaelic world, archaeological evidence increasingly reveals the haphazard and

incomplete nature of this plantation process. Some parts of the north of Ireland, for

example theparts of countiesAntrimandDown that attracted a criticalmass of lowland

Scottish settlers, did seemajor changes in land use and settlement. But even there, the

imprintofthepastwasnevererased,withplantationtownsdepictedinearlymapsreplete

withIrishvernacularbuildings,andwithmedievalroutewaysandlanddivisionssurvivingto

thisday.Elsewhere,thedemographicsandeconomicrealitiesmadeamockeryofplantation

precepts.24

The efforts to impose plantation on Ireland, inspired by earlymodern colonial ideologies

andpracticesbasedinpartontheinterpretationofclassicalsources,wereoccurringatthe

same time as were the first British efforts to plant colonies in North America. As the

effective start point formuch North American historical archaeology, the early period of

British expansion has been credited with the development and imposition of a

fundamentallynewwayoforderingandunderstandingtheworldthathasbeeninterpreted

as inherentlydifferent fromearlierperiodsandmarkedespeciallyby the interrelationship

betweencapitalism,colonialism,Eurocentrism,andmodernity.25Thisnotionofadefinable

breakwith the past precipitated by Atlantic expansion is not universally accepted, and is

particularly problematicwhen examined from the perspective of Europeanpost-medieval

archaeology.Forexample,archaeologicalstudiesofthewidespreadinfluenceandactivities

of theHanseatic trading league, starting in the14thcentury,must consider theemphasis

uponprofitandinvestmentascapitalisticatleastinsomeform.Morespecifically,Natasha

Mehler and Mark Gardiner have also argued that the asymmetrical power relations

establishedby theHansa in their tradingrelationswith the inhabitantsof Icelandandthe

FaroeIslandsineffectcreatedtheconditionsforthelaterimpositionofcolonialismonthe

islandsinthe17thand18thcentury.26

FransVerhaegenotesthat,farfrombeingstaticandunchanging,medievalEuropeansociety

underwent a range of fundamental transformations long before the impacts of Atlantic

expansion, including ‘the emergence of new urban societies, networks and cultures, and

most if not all leading to greater complexity in terms of society and social stratification,

economy,andsocialandculturalbehaviour.’27 Intermsofthetimingoftheemergenceof

capitalistpracticeswithinEngland,oneneedlooknofurtherthantheexpansionofthewool

exporttradeinthelate14thcentury,materiallymarkedbythedevelopmentofcommercial

buildingssuchasLondon’sBlackwellHall,whichservedasthecentreoftheEnglishwoollen

market from the late 14th through 18th centuries.28 These archaeological insights on

medieval capitalistic formulations are strongly influenced by the Annales School, echoing

the1944wordsofMarcBloch:‘capitalismwithacapital‘C’,whatdateshallweassigntoits

appearance?ThetwelfthcenturyinItaly?...theeighteenthcentury,oreventhenineteenth?

ThereasmanybirthcertificatesasthereareHistorians.’29TheworkofFernandBraudel in

particularcanbeseenashighlyinfluentialonpost-medievalarchaeology,itselftraditionally

linkedmuchmorecloselytohistoryasadisciplineratherthanlinkedtoanthropology,asis

thecaseforNorthAmericanhistoricalarchaeology.

Considerationoftheincreasinglyglobalnatureofexchangerelationsfromthe17thcentury

onwards necessarily leads into a consideration of globalisation; a framework that while

seldom explicitly referenced in post-medieval archaeology, nonetheless is core to

understandings of material culture, exchange networks, and cultural transformations. As

with capitalism, then, post-medieval archaeology has actually contributed much to our

understanding the actualities of the processes and ongoing impacts of globalisation, as

exploredbelow.However, greaterovertengagementwith theoretical approaches toboth

capitalism and globalisation is needed to more fully demonstrate the potential of post-

medievalarchaeologytocontributesignificantlytoglobalarchaeologicaldiscourses.

GLOBALISATIONANDPOST-MEDIEVALARCHAEOLOGY

Globalisation,likecapitalism,cannotbeunderstoodasaphenomenonwhichemerged,fully-

formed,duringthepost-medievalera.Norcanglobalisationbeviewedsimplisticallyasthe

impositionofWestern-stylecapitalismontherestoftheworld,notwithstandingarguments

aboutthe‘Americanization’oftheglobaleconomyasexemplifiedbytheglobalpenetration

of Coca Cola and Ronald Macdonald in the latter half of the twentieth century.30

Contemporaryapproachestothestudyofglobalisationvaryconsiderably indefinitionand

focus,but tendtoemphasisethegeographicalextentandcharacterofexchangerelations

and the way those relations fundamentally reshape local practices including labour

organisation and social discourse.31 At a very basic level, then, globalisation can be

understood as a processwhereby intensified social, economic, and political engagements

transcend considerable geographical distances and link together disparate polities to

variableextents.Archaeologicalstudiesthatemployglobalisationasalensspecificallyseek

to understand and characterise the nature of those global and local linkages particularly

throughtheirmaterialsignatures.

Whilethisarticleisnottheplaceforalengthydiscourseovertheappropriatechronological

frameworkforglobalisation,itisworthnotingthatthereisconsiderabledisagreementover

whentheprocessbegan,rangingfromperspectiveswhichseeitaspost-dating1989andthe

falloftheBerlinWall,orattheotherendofthespectrum,asfundamentallyrootedinthe

long distance trade relations developed by early agricultural societies.32 Complex political

economicrelationshipshavecertainlyalwaysexistedbetweendistinctsocietiesandhistory

cannot be simplistically characterised by an unqualified increase in global

interconnectednessovertime.Bywayofexample,MooreandLewisusedocumentaryand

archaeologicalevidencetoarguethaturbanBronzeandIronAgesocietiesoftheNearEast

participatedinmanyofthesame‘international’businesspracticesrecognisabletoday,with

regulatedmarketsandrolesakintochiefexecutivesandshareholders.Whilenotwithoutits

critics, particularly ancient historians, their perspective makes a valuable contribution to

contemporarydiscourseovertheoriginsofglobalisation.33Forourpurposes,wewill treat

theearlymodernperiod,andthe increase inglobaltraderelationspredicatednotonlyby

European expansion but also the expanding reach of and demand for commodities as

diverseasChineseporcelain,Irishlinen,andNewWorldtobaccoasconstitutiveofaformof

globalisation.

Not surprisingly, North American historical archaeologists studying the 17th and 18th

centuries have traditionally been strongly influenced by world systems theory; both as

rooted in the work of the Annales School but in particular as articulated by Emmanuel

Wallerstein,giventhereadinesswithwhichhisconceptsofcoreandperipheralregionscan

be applied to address the relationship between European powers and colonial holdings

particularly in the early modern Atlantic.34 Steven Pendery, for example, has explicitly

evokedWallerstein in addressing themovement of Portuguese ceramics toNew England

through highlighting Wallerstein’s analysis of the role of Lisbon as a centre for the

transhipmentofEasterngoodstothewiderEuropeanandEuropean-influencedworld,and

thecomplex‘commercialrelationshipsbetweenNewEngland,thePortuguesemid-Atlantic

archipelagos, theBritish Isles,andPortugal.’35Whilenotexplicitly citingWallersteinasan

influence,MarcelMoussette’s2009articleinPost-MedievalArchaeologynonethelesstakes

as a starting principle the inequal power relations between the European core and

peripheral indigenoussocietiesasheconsidersthe impactofEuropeancolonialexpansion

on Native societies in the north-eastern portions of the American continent as being

fundamentallyshapedbymercantilecapitalism: ‘Attheendoftheprotohistoricperiod, it

seemsthatAmerindiansocieties,despitetherelativestabilityoftheirculturalsystemswhen

indirectorindirectcontactwiththeBasque,BretonandNormannewcomers,hadbecome

increasinglyinvolvedintheworldeconomythroughthecapitalistexpansionoftheAtlantic

zoneandthroughthefurtrade.Asaresult,theywereprobablyalreadyaffectedbychanges

thatpresagedtheenormousupheavalstheywouldundergointhe17thcentury.’36

Worldsystemsapproachesarecertainlyeffectiveininterpretingthemacroscalelevelofthe

unequalrelationsbetweencoreandperipheralregionsandpeoples,butcanbecritiquedon

two levels: first, for downplaying the role and significance of non-Western political

economiesandculturalexpressions(as inMoussette’sanalysisofthe impactofcapitalism

andcolonialismonindigenoussocietieswhichdoesnotconsidertheconcomitantimpactsof

those forces on the European fishers and colonisers), and secondly for a failure to

adequatelyaddresstherichnessofthemicroscalelevelofengagement.37Heretheworkof

MaryHelmsisoftenevoked,asshehasprovidedanin-depthinvestigationofthemeaning

of geographical distance to people around the world, arguing for multiple ways of

conceiving differences between the local and the distant.38 No matter what form these

divisions take,asconcentriczonesordiscreteboundaries,knowledgeof landsandpeople

beyond them, either through direct interaction or through the acquisition of objects

associatedwith them, can imbue an individualwith special significance,marking themas

differentfromthe‘commonperson’whohasneverventuredforthamong‘theother’.39

Amaterially-richexampleof such longdistanceexchange in thismanneremerged froma

development-driven excavation of features associated with 17th-century households on

NarrowStreet inRatcliff, near Limehouse in London, documented tohavebeenprimarily

occupiedbythewell-to-dofamiliesofprivateersandsailors.Inadditiontoobjectsreflective

of considerableeconomicand social standing suchasVenetian tableglassanddecorative

tin-enamelled wares from theMediterranean, domestic assemblages also incorporated a

surprisingrangeofnon-Europeanceramics,includingCaribbeanandPersianwares,seldom,

if ever, found on English sites.40 This remarkable assemblage also provides a rare

opportunitytotranscendthatboundarybetweenthemacroandmicroscalesofanalysisso

challengingwhencontemplatingglobalisation.Weactuallyknowthenamesofmanyofthe

marinerswho lived in or nearNarrow Street, allowing for an informed reimagining of an

individual like Captain William Goodson, whose activities included exporting shoes to

BarbadosandfightingagainsttheSpanishintheCaribbeaninthe1650s,acquiringalocally

made,Colono-waretypevessel likethatrecoveredfromapit inNarrowStreet;orRatcliff

residentWilliamSwanley,whocaptainedtheEast India fleet in Indiabetween1618-1620.

DocumentsindicatethatSwanleyexportedquantitiesofPersianspices;perhapshisinterest

inPersiancuisineledtotheacquisitionofPersianpottery,suchasthesoft-pastestoneware

teabowlrecoveredfromthesite.

Whiletheauthorsofthestudydidnotspeculateontheprecisemeaningoftheseobjectsfor

theirowners,therearenoshortageoffruitful,theoretically-informedapproachesthatcan

informan interpretationof theassemblage.Abiographical approach to justoneof those

objects,thecolonowarevessel,wouldbringtogetherconsiderationoftheoriginalproducer

ofthepot,anditslocalisedmeaning--onealreadyfreightedwithcolonialinequitiesandthe

materialimpactofcolonialentanglement-withthenatureoftheinteractionsthatbrought

thepot into thedailyorbit andattentionofGoodson.41What valuemightGoodsonhave

placed on the object and its acquisition? Was it an intentional purchase or merely the

retentionof a vesselusedwithinGoodson’sCaribbean residence, linked to theworkof a

domesticservant?WhyretainthevesselandcarryitacrosstheAtlantic?Wasitareminder

ofplaceandcuisine,orasymbolofhegemony?Oranunremarkableeverydayobjectofso

little value it escaped attention in the packing up of household effects? Precisely how

Goodson physically engaged with, and understood, the pot is ultimately unknowable,

however,giventherecursiverelationshipbetweenobjectsandpeoplethatisfundamental

to understandings of materiality we can assume that Goodson and the members of his

households,both inLimehouseand in theCaribbean,wouldhavebeen impacted insome

way through engagement with an object that embodied the connection between two

geographicallyandculturallydistantplaces.42

A somewhat analogous example comes from the other side of the Atlantic, where

archaeologists exploring the traces of the fort built in the first years of the Jamestown

colony have unearthed extremely rich deposits ofmaterial, often dumped intowells and

other features, that speakboth to the traumaof theearlyyearsof theVirginia colonyas

well as yielding incomparable insights into the individual engagements of English people

withthelocalworldofthePowhatanpeople.Alongsidetheheapsofarmouranddiscarded

personal items, a unique potwas unearthed that has been attributed to the pipe-maker

Robert Cotton.43 Made of local clay impressed into a basket, the pot gives the outward

appearance ofmimicking Powhatan ceramic forms, given its rounded bottom and basket

markings.Yetitisaninexactcopyinthatitisnotcoil-builtasaproperPowhatanpotshould

havebeen,anditsbasketimpressionsdifferfromthemorecommonsimplestampingfound

in the region. Cotton’s inexpert Powhatan pot suggests a fascination with Powhatan

material culture perhaps also implied by Goodson’s curated colonoware pot; an interest

thatbecauseitinvolvedaneffortatreplication,mayreflectadeepermimeticprocessthan

the scientific curiosity displayed by collectors such as John Tradescant the Younger who

operatedinVirginiainthe1620s.44Themostwell-knownitemcollectedbyTradescantwas

therobeorwallhangingknownasPowtahan’smantlethatcontinuestobedisplayedinthe

Ashmolean museum in Oxford. Such collecting for knowledge, as discussed by Adriana

Turpin (building on the ideas of Igor Kopytoff), bestowed a form of status on the holder

throughtheactofacquisitionanddisplay.45Thevalueplacedonsuchcuriositiesandexotica

wasrootedintheirothernessandinthepowerofpossession-ratherdifferentthantheact

ofincompletereplicationexhibitedbyCotton’spot.Whetherindicativeofadeepermimetic

processornot,thesingularvesselfoundatJamestownhasthepowertoconnectboththe

extremelymicroscale-theworkandthoughtprocessesofasingledocumentedpipe-maker,

withmacroscalecolonialengagements.

The challenge of scale has also been highlighted by Frederic Cooper in his critique of

theoriesofglobalisation: ‘thatglobal shouldbecontrasted to local,even if thepoint is to

analyse their mutual constitution, only underscores the inadequacy of current analytical

tools to analyse anything in between.’46 Carefully considered and contextualised

archaeologicalnarrativescanbridgethatdividethroughjoiningtogetherboththeverylocal,

includingindividualengagementswitheconomicandculturalprocessesandideologies,with

the global and seeing them not as contrasting, but as entangled and interdependent as

illustratedbytheCottonpot.Alookattwocasestudiesfocusingonclaytobaccopipescan

further help to illustrate this point through linking the processes of capitalism and

globalisation with a closer consideration of individual experiences and identity

transformations.

In two different parts of the world, in the middle of the seventeenth century, local

craftspeoplebeganproducingclaytobaccopipesoutofterracottaclays, inpartmotivated

byadesireforprofitthroughproducingacheaperalternativetoimportedEnglishandDutch

ware. These two locales were Carrickfergus, an English garrison and plantation town in

county Antrim in the north of Ireland, and the colonial Chesapeake, in eastern North

America.These locallymade terracottaChesapeakepipeshave long intrigued scholars, as

discussedbyKathrynSikes.47ClearlydevelopedfromlocalAlgonquianforms,thepipessport

arangeofdecorativemotifsthathavealternativelybeeninterpretedasNative,African,and

European. Turning on the argument on its head, Sikes considers how this object, and its

ambiguousdesigns,couldbothknittogetherindividualsofdifferentethnicbackgroundsina

commonactivity:smoking,yetatthesametimethedifferentwaysinwhichthestarmotifin

particular (fig. 3) could be understood according to cultural background serves as a

metaphor for the limits of hybridisation. Chesapeake pipes, then, were not only tobacco

deliverydeviceswhoseusewasdeterminedbyglobaleconomicexchange,theywereactive

agentsintheconstructingofbothnewsocialandculturalrelationsyetfundamentaltothe

maintenance of traditions. Chesapeake pipemakers were concomitantly displaying

capitalisticmotivationswhile continuing a pre-capitalist tradition, andparticipating in the

cultural transformations within a society in ways far more complex than can ever be

explainedthroughsimpleacculturationframeworksorexpectationsofthetotalisingnature

ofcapitalisticformulations.

Bycontrast,whoeverproducedthesmallanduniqueassemblageofundecoratedterracotta

smoking pipes found in the excavation of one mid-17th-century site in Carrickfergus

evidentlydidnotsucceedinansweringanyparticularculturaloreveneconomicneed.Well

connected to the port of Chester, goods came into Carrickfergus regularly and cheaply.

Found nowhere else in Carrickfergus or beyond, it seems these pipes were merely an

experiment-aneffortbyalocalpottertosubvertthemarketandansweralocalneed,but

an experiment that seemingly failed. In the Chesapeake, the locally-made pipes clearly

servedaneedbeyondthatofadesireforacheappipe.48InCarrickfergus,theredclaypipes

apparently servednoparticular socialneed thatoutweighed theutilityof importedwhite

ball clay tobaccopipes.Thatsuch localcontingenciesshapeddemandand impactedupon

the circulation and consumption of goods is perhaps unsurprising, but nevertheless such

microscale examples serve as an important corrective to overly prescriptive models of

consumptionactivity.

The multivalency of objects is well-illustrated through post-medieval archaeology. As

illustrated by the cabinets of curiosity discussed above, the meanings of objects can be

transformed through geographic as well as cultural distance. Ordinary items in one land

become luxury items in another, as prosaically exemplifiedby the appearanceof ceramic

stove tiles inEnglandandpantile roofs in coastalNorfolk.Tiled stovesweredeveloped in

transalpineEuropebythe14thcentury,andbythe16thcenturytheywerecommonlyused

as heating devices in homes throughout Scandinavia and the Alps. Documentary and

archaeological evidence reveals thatwhen theseobjects crossed the channel they shifted

from being ordinary items available to nearly all levels of society to an exclusive luxury

commissioned by wealthy individuals; many of whom had witnessed their use when

travelingon the continent.49While tiled stovesneverbecamewidelyadopted inEngland,

giventherelativescarcityofwoodforfuel,roofingpantilesfollowedadifferenttrajectory.

Firsta luxury imported fromtheNetherlandsandonlyusedbyelites in the16thcentury,

pantiles then became one of many roofing options available to a fairly broad subset of

Norfolksocietyastradeincreasedinthe17thcentury.Finally,thepantiletransitionedintoa

localstapleasNorfolkmanufacturersbeganmakingpantileswhichwerethenusedbythe

majorityofregionalhouseholdsinthe18thcentury.50

Incontrast,theexcavationofalate17th-andearly18th-centurytin-glazedearthenwarekiln

in Lambeth, London demonstrates a very different approach to the consumption and

exchangeofgoods.Despitethefactthattheownersandprimaryoperatorsofthisfactory

wereEnglishcitizens,theyconstructedthekilninastylemorepopularincontinentalEurope

than on the British Isles and almost exclusively produced tin-glazed earthenware in the

sameformsanddecorationstypicalofceramicsproducedinthecityofDelftatthetime.51

Theownersofthispotterychosetoproducethesehighly-commodifiedobjects inorderto

tapintothesamenetworkofdistributorsandmarketerswhoacquiredtin-glazedceramics

fromDelftandsoldtheminLondon.Ithaslongbeenrecognisedthatthepopularityofthis

typeofceramicamongstindividualsatall levelsofEnglishsocietyrelatestohowitsforms

anddecorations imitatedthoseof importedChineseporcelain.52Thisphenomenonwasof

coursenotconfinedtoceramicsbutaffectedmanydifferent typesofconsumergoods,as

manufacturersofnewgloballuxuriesco-optedthedistributionnetworksdevelopedbythe

importers of exotic goods from around the world. Thus, the origins of globalisation as

reflective of global geographic space must be understood as occurring in the places in

betweenlocalities, inthesocialandeconomicnetworksofmanufacturers,merchants,and

investors from around the world which organized and structured the translocation of

physicalgoodsinthepost-medievalperiod.

The increasing availability and consumption of items deemed to be luxuries was

accompaniedbyconsiderableculturalanxiety.53Beginninginthemid-17thcentury,writers

andpamphleteersinnorthwestEuropepublishedaseriesofdebatesaboutthenatureand

moralityofluxurygoods.Initiallyjudgingtheconsumptionofluxuryitemsasexcessiveand

associatedwiththeeliteandpoliticallypowerful,rhetoricshiftedoverthecourseofthelate

17th and 18th centuries to a perspective wherein the consumption of luxuries signalled

tasteandsophistication,andimportantlyasessentialtotheeconomichealthofasociety.54

Building onMarx’s analysis of conspicuous consumption in the 18th and 19th centuries,

Pierre Bourdieu’s classicworkDistinction explores the role played by consumption in the

maintenanceofelitepowerstructures;aperspectivethatcontinuestoinformandinfluence

understandingsoftheroleplayedbycommoditiesinpost-medievalEurope.55However,the

closeralignmentofpost-medievalarchaeologywithhistoryratherthanwithanthropology

hasmeantthatseminalanthropologicalstudiessuchasDouglasandIsherwood’s1979The

World of Goods, which brought together economic and cultural perspectives on

consumption,havehad lessofan influence than theworkofeconomichistorianssuchas

McKendrickandJandeVries.DeVriesexplicitlycontrastsoldluxuries(producedexclusively

for elites)with new luxurieswhichworked to obscure their biographies: eachobjectwas

produced to be as similar as possible to others of the same ‘type’ and were exchanged

throughaseriesofmiddlemensothatconsumerswerepresentedwitharangeofpotential

options according to their buying power.56 Old luxuries maintained their exclusivity by

explicitlyreferringtotheprocessesbywhichtheyweremanufacturedorexchanged,either

by being made by particularly skilled craftsmen or artists from rare materials and/or by

originating beyond a geographically meaningful distance. Put another way, old luxuries

could be valuable because they were obtained from a geographically distant place, new

luxurieswerevaluablebecauseitdidnotmatterwheretheywereproduced.

While this distinction between old and new luxuries does not preclude the role

consumerism played in the reification of social hierarchies as explored by Marx and

Bourdieu, de Vries’ reading of the active engagement of all levels of society arguably

provides space for the inclusion of the agentive approaches that currently characterise

British material culture scholarship. This scholarship draws heavily upon anthropological

frameworks to focus on the active ability of individuals to employ objects in identity-

making.57TheworkofmaterialculturescholarssuchasDanielMillerstronglyinfluencesthe

newresearchoncontemporaryarchaeologywhichhasnowfoundaplaceonthepagesof

Post-MedievalArchaeology,58buthasarguablybeenslowtopenetratethestudyofearlier

periods. An important exception is RossWilson’s 2008 discussion of 18th-century English

consumerism,wherehedrawsinspirationfromBrunoLaTourinsharplycritiquinghistorical

approachestoconsumerismthanfocusonlyonobjectsascommoditiesratherthanactive

‘participantsinthesocietywhichutilizesthem.’59

Themovementofobjectsintheearlymodernperiodisonlyonepartofthenascentprocess

ofglobalisation.People,plants,animals,anddiseasevectorsalsocirculatedirrespectiveof

national borders, in a process that differed significantly in scale from earlier patterns of

biological exchange.60 Rather than slowly transitioning between exotically sourced luxury

andlocallyproducedstaple,ashasbeenobservedbythemovementoffloraintheancient

world, 61many species associatedwith the Colombian Exchange, like tobacco, sugar, and

Carolinarice,becamecashcrops,productswhichwerewidelyavailabletobothsocialelites

and non-elites despite being transported over significant geographic distances.62 The

exploitation of these new cash crops was dependent upon a new scale of human

exploitation-theforcedmovementandenslavementofmillionsofpeoplefromtheAfrican

continenttotheAmericas.WhilearchaeologiesoftheAfricandiasporaconstituteavibrant

subfieldofhistoricalarchaeology,itisfairtosaythatpost-medievalarchaeologyhasyetto

demonstratethepotentialofexploringtheimpactsoftheAtlanticslavetradeonthehome

societies of the slave traders.63 Despite the wholesale entanglement of British ports and

citiesintheexchangeofpeopleandthings,aswellasthehistoricexistenceofAfricanand

African-descendantcommunitieswithintheUnitedKingdom,articleswithinPost-Medieval

Archaeology which reference slavery are exceptionally rare, and are either focused on

geographic locations outside of Europe (eg. the Caribbean and Bermuda), or address the

abolitionistmovement.64 One recent andwelcome exception is a study by JaneWebster

whichhighlights thedevelopmentof apreviouslyunremarkedEnglishproslaverymaterial

culture, exemplifiedby theproductionof ceramics commemorating Liverpool-based slave

ships.65

Ships crossing theAtlanticnotonly carried intentionalhumancargoandexchangegoods,

but also facilitated a host of intended and unintended biological and entomological

exchanges that must also be understand as central to processes and consequences of

globalisation, rather than merely a correlate. In other words, as argued by Stephen

Mrozowski,‘theenvironmentmustbetakenintoaccountasbothcontextandactiveagent

in the historical trajectories of colonization, industrialisation and urbanization as global

processes.’66Notwithstanding thehistoricstrengthofenvironmentalapproaches inBritish

archaeologymore generally, the application of environmental analyses to later historical

archaeology havebeenmore fully explored inNorthAmerica; for example, the extensive

landscape changes in the Chesapeake precipitated by the introduction of European

domestic livestock, and the examination of the impact of ballast dumping in the Avalon

Peninsula of Newfoundland, which resulted in the introduction of ‘more introduced

Carabidae,orgroundbeetles,thananyotherareaofNorthAmerica.’67

While fewer in number, there are good examples of the potential for environmental

analysesinBritishpost-medievalarchaeology,particularlyinrelationtotheimpactofNew

World species into Europe. Brooklynne ‘Tyr’ Fothergill has recently examined the cultural

andfaunalimpactsoftheintroductionoftheAmericanturkeyintoEurope,68whilesingular

discoveriesofexoticanimals,suchasthejawbonefromaSouthAmericancapuchinmonkey

uncovered from a 17th-century deposit at Brooks Wharf, London, also speak to the

intentionalbiologicalexchanges facilitatedbyscientificcuriosityof,asdescribedbyAlison

Games, ‘Englishcosmopolitans.’69 Similarly,archaeologicalanddocumentaryexaminations

of historic garden landscapes, particular from the 18th century, have illuminated the

intentional, scientific exchange of flora and fauna, as illustrated by Clare Hickman’s

examination of the Earl’s Court landscape garden of the scientist and anatomist John

Hunter.70

Returning to the significance of scale, post-medieval archaeologists have productively

examinedthetiminganddispersalofpeople,flora,faunaandobjectsacrosstheworldand

theirmeaningswithinlocalitiesaswellasinindividualhouseholds.Butifwewishtomore

fullyaddressthecharacterofthebroaderprocessesofglobalisationitself,itthenbecomes

necessary to consider the consumption practices of geographically-distant places in

comparativeperspective,toteaseoutthecomplexwebofinterrelationships.Acaseinpoint

oftheincreasinglyglobalnatureofinterdependencyisprovidedbyAlasdairBrooks,whohas

examined the impact of the American Civil War on the types of pottery consumed in

Australia.On the surfaceunconnected, amacroscale comparisonof themid-19th-century

export of Staffordshire wares, rooted in both the archaeological and historical records,

reveals that when trade to the US was curtailed by warfare, the plain white ceramics

preferredby theAmericanmarketwere shipped to themorecaptivemarketofAustralia,

notwithstandingagreaterlocalpreferencefordecoratedwares.71Additionally,comparisons

between the ceramic assemblages of middling rural households in the western Scottish

lowlands and Virginia suggest that while individuals in both areas came to primarily

consumehighly-commodifiedStaffordshire-madeindustrialceramicsoverthecourseofthe

18thcentury,thetimingandtheincentivesforthischangeinconsumerbehaviourdiffered

significantlybasedonlocalhistoricalcontingencies.72

The individuals who participated in these exchanges were not necessarily attempting to

forge(ordismantle)aglobalisedworldthatlayinafuturetheycouldnotpredict.AsCooper

pointsout,‘Theproblemwithmakingintegrationthestandard-andmeasuringeverything

else as lack, failure, or distortion - is that one fails to ask what is actually happening.’73

Different localities experienced increasing global entanglements and interdependence in

variable ways, each with their own unique relationships with supra-territorial networks.

Archaeology provides ameans to explore these variations and to tackle the global scale

through interrogating the micro scale. Even highly-commodified global luxuries must be

understood in their relation to their local context in order to interpret the range of

meanings with which they were imbued.74 Globalisation, as it is defined here, is an

importantprocessinthecreationofthemodernworldthatisfundamentallyentwinedwith

the forces of capitalism and colonialism. However, if not approached from amulti-scalar

perspective, we run the risk of assigning these intertwined forces a coherence and

uniformitytheyneverpossessed.

CONCLUSION

InthefirstyearlypublicationoftheSocietyforPost-MedievalArchaeology,DavidCrossley,

then lecturer in economic history at the University of Sheffield, contributed an article

describing his excavation of a glass furnace operated in the early 16th-century in

Staffordshire.While not explicitly addressing capitalism, Crossley pondered the potential

profits that the glasshousemay have accrued through reference to documentary sources

from contemporary glasshouses. Crossley calculated that, after balancing the expenditure

costswith thepossible salepriceof theproduct, theownerof theglasshousecouldhave

madeaprofiteveryyear.75Crossley’sconclusionisentirelylogicalifweviewcapitalismasin

an immutable system wherein the acceptance of some of its aspects, like paid wages,

necessitates embracing the worldview as a whole. However, in the fifty years since

Crossley’s study was published, we have become increasingly aware of the spotty and

incompletenatureofthecapitalisttransformation.InthespecificcaseoftheStaffordshire

glassworks, social relationships governed credit and debt relationshipswhichwould have

hadaconsiderableimpactuponthegeneration,andindeedmeaning,ofprofit.76

Capitalistsystemsarenotimmutable,asdemonstratedbyboththearchaeologicalexamples

above and the work of social theorists. To note the differences that can exist between

equally capitalist systems, one simply has to observe the difference between the Adam

Smith’sdenunciationof labour thatdoesnot “[realize] itself in someparticular subjector

vendible commodity, which lasts for some time at least after that labour is past” as

unproductive,77andtherealityofpresentdaycorporatecapitalismwherein“thefactoryand

theshop…areincreasinglyexperiencedbyvirtueoftheirerasure.”78Infact,theindustrial

capitalismtoutedbyAdamSmithandcritiquedbyKarlMarx,markedby largenumbersof

fairly small firms funded by small groups ofwealthy investorswherein the production of

objects-Smith’s ‘vendiblecommodities’-wastheprimarygoal, is inpartanadaptationof

capitalistideologiestotheearlymodernEnglishlandholdingsystems.Beginningaroundthe

16thcentury,membersofthelandowninggentrywereencouragedtoconstructworkshops

ontheir ruralestatesandhirenon-localartisans toget themostvalue fromtheir lands.79

Thus, the differences between the British industrial capitalism of the 19th century and

American corporate capitalism of the late 20th century can be traced back to historical

developments inmedievalandearlymodernEngland.Byexploringtheseconnectionstoa

deeper past, archaeologists have made notable advances in the study of capitalism and

globalnetworksofmaterialexchange.

Fromitsoriginalnarrowconceptualisationofthestudyofpost-medievalBritainandEurope

betweenc.1500 to theonsetof industrialisation,post-medievalarchaeology,as reflected

onthepagesofPost-MedievalArchaeology,notonlylookstomedievalrootsbutnowalso

embracesthestudyofthecontemporaryworld,asfurtherexploredinthisvolumebyLaura

McAtackneyandSefrynPenrose.80Suchstudiesconnectpastandpresent,asexemplifiedby

PaulGraves-Brown’sexplorationofhowtheemergenceofincreasinglyfastcommunications

systems and the containerization of shipping in the mid-20th century precipitated a

significant expansion in supra-territorial interactions.81 This development, however, was

dependent upon the creation of markets for highly-commodified, mass produced goods

whichbeganinthelate17thcentury.

Finally,thecurrentexpansionofpost-medievalarchaeology/historicalarchaeologyaround

theglobepromisestofurthercomplicateandchallengetraditionalWesternunderstandings

oftheemergenceofmodernityanditsmaterialsignatures.Contemporaryresearchonthe

archaeologiesofthelastfivehundredyearsinSouthAmerica,Africa,theMiddleEast,India,

and East Asia is providing an invaluable complication of understandings of globalisation,

particularly when associatedwith post-colonial critiques. Archaeological practice in these

regions requires a forthright engagement with the legacies of European expansion,

strengthening and deepening the contemporary relevance of historical archaeology and

serving as an exemplar for the transformation of practice in the historic cores of the

discipline.82 Any consideration of capitalism and globalisation that did not consider the

presentwouldbeperpetuatinganartificialseparationbetweenpastandpresent,as ifthe

past was complete and the present fundamentally different. In reality, we continue to

strugglewiththesameissuesofinequality, incompleteness,andaninabilitytopredictthe

future that exercised people in the past. The increasing diversity and vibrancy of global

archaeologicalpractice,embeddedinanawarenessoftheongoinglegaciesofearlymodern

colonialism, promises to not only enhance our understandings of capitalism and

globalisation,butmoreimportantlytoensurethesocialrelevancyofarchaeology.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Appadurai,A.(ed.)1986,TheSocialLifeofThings:CommoditiesinCulturalPerspective,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Armitage, P. 1981, ‘Jawbone of a South American monkey from BrooksWharf, London.’

LondonArchaeol.4:10,262-70.

Atkinson,D.&Oswald,A.1972‘ABriefGuidefortheIdentificationofDutchClayTobacco

PipesFoundinEngland.’Post-MedievalArchaeol.6,175-182

Bateman,N.2004,‘FromRagstoRiches:BlackwellHallandtheWoolClothTradec.1450-

1790.’Post-MedievalArchaeol.38:1,1-15.

Barker,D.1999,‘TheCeramicRevolution1650-1850,’inEgan&Michael1999,226-234.

Barker,D.&Horton,W.1999,‘ThedevelopmentoftheCoalportChinaworks:ananalysisof

thefinds.’Post-MedievalArchaeol33:1,3-93.

Belcher, J.&Jarrett,M.1971, ‘Stem-BoreDiametersofEnglishClayPipes:SomeNorthern

Evidence.’Post-MedievalArchaeol.5,191-193.

Belford,P.2010, ‘Fivecenturiesof ironworking:excavationsatWednesburyForge’,Post-

MedievalArchaeol.44,1-53.

Berg,M.2007,LuxuryandPleasureinEighteenth-CenturyBritain,Oxford:OxfordUniversity

Press.

Bloch,M.1953,TheHistorian’sCraft.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.

Bloice,B.1971,‘NorfolkHouse,Lambeth:ExcavationsataDelftwareKilnSite,1968’,Post-

MedievalArchaeol.6,99-159.

Boivin, N., Fuller, D.Q. & Crowther, A. 2012, ‘OldWorld globalization and the Columbian

exchange:comparisonandcontrast’,WorldArchaeol.44,452-469.

Bowen, J. 1994, ‘A comparative analysis of the New England and Chesapeake herding

systems,’inShackel&Little1994,155-167.

Breen,C.2012,‘RandalMacDonnellandearlyseventeenth-centurysettlementinnortheast

Ulster,1603-30’,inÓSiochrú&ÓCiardha2012,143-147.

Brooks, A. 2009, ‘The View fromAfar: International Perspectives on theAnalysis of post-

1750CeramicsinBritainandIreland,’Horning&Palmer2009,287-300.

Brooks,A.&RodriguezY.A.2012, ‘AVenezuelanhouseholdclearageassemblageof19th-

centuryBritishceramicsinaninternationalperspective’,Post-MedievalArchaeol.46,70-88.

Brown,M.1999,ThePracticeofAmericanHistoricalArchaeologyinEgan&Michael1999,

23-32.

BuchliV.(ed.)2001,TheMaterialCultureReader,NewYork:Berg.

Butler,L.A.S.1967,‘Editorial,’Post-MedievalArchaeol.1,1-2.

Cipolla, C. & Hayes, K.H. (eds) 2015 Rethinking Colonialism: Comparative Archaeological

ApproachesGainesville:UniversityofFloridaPress.

Chandra, N. 2007, Bound Together: How Traders, Preachers, Adventurers, and Warriors

ShapedGlobalization,NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.

Comaroff,J.&Comaroff,J.2005,‘MillennialCapitalismandtheCultureofNeoliberalism,’in

Edelman&Haugerud2005,177-188.

Cooper,F.2005,Colonialism inQuestion:Theory,Knowledge,History,Berkeley:University

ofCaliforniaPress.

Cooper, F. 2001, ‘What is the concept of globalization good for? An African historian's

perspective’,AfricanAffairs100,189-213.

Cornell,P.2015,‘ColonialEncounters,Time,andSocialInnovation,’inCipolla&Hayes2015,

99-120.

Crewe, V. 2012, Ancient Luxury andModern Filth:New Insights into 19th-Century Life at

SheffieldManorLodge,Post-MedievalArchaeol.46:2,333-366.

Crossley, D. 1967, ‘Glassmaking in Bagot's Park, Staffordshire, in the Sixteenth Century’,

Post-MedievalArchaeol.1,44-83.

Crawford, I.A. 1969, ‘The Divide betweenMedieval and Post-Medieval in Scotland,’Post-

MedievalArchaeol.1,84-89.

Croucher, S. & Weiss, L. 2011, ‘The Archaeology of Capitalism in Colonial Contexts, an

Introduction:provincializingHistoricalArchaeology’inCroucher&Weiss2011,1-38.

Croucher, S. &Weiss, L. (eds) 2011, The Archaeology of Capitalism in Colonial Contexts:

PostcolonialHistoricalArchaeologies,NewYork:Springer.

Dalglish,C.2005,‘Anageoftransition?CastlesandtheScottishHighlandestateinthe16th

and17thcenturies.’Post-MedievalArchaeol39:2,243-266.

Dawson,D.&Kent,O.2008,‘ThedevelopmentoftheBottleKilninPotterymanufacturein

Britain,’Post-MedievalArchaeol.42:1,201-266.

DeMunck,B.&Lyna,D.(eds.)2015,ConceptsofValueinEuropeanMaterialCulture1500-

1900,Surrey:Ashgate.

De Vries, J. 2008, The Industrious Revolution: Consumer Behavior and the Household

Economy,1650tothePresent,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Gaimster, D. & Stamper P. (eds) 1997, The Age of Transition: the Archaeology of English

Culture1400-1600Oxford:Oxbow.

Deetz,J.1977,InSmallThingsForgotten:anArchaeologyofEarlyAmericanLife,NewYork:AnchorBooks.

Diamond,J.1999,Guns,GermsandSteel:theFatesofHumanSocieties,NewYork:Norton.

Dixon,J.2011,‘Isthepresentdaypost-medieval?’Post-MedievalArchaeol.45:2,313-321.

Edelman,M. & Haugerud, A. 2005, The Anthropology of Development and Globalization:

FromClassicalPoliticalEconomytoContemporaryNeoliberalism,Oxford:Blackwell.

Egan,G.&Michael,R.L.(eds)1999,OldandNewWorlds,Oxford:Oxbow.

Ferris, N., R. Harrison, M.V. Wilcox (eds). 2014, Rethinking Colonial Pasts through

Archaeology,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Flatman,J.2003,‘Culturalbiographies,cognitivelandscapesanddirtyoldbitsofboat:

‘theory’inmaritimearchaeology’,InternationalJournalofNauticalArchaeology32:2,143-

157.

Friedman,T. 1999,TheLexusandtheOliveTree:UnderstandingGlobalization.NewYork:

Farrar,StraussandGiroux.

Frazer,B.1999,‘Commonrecollections:Resistingenclosure“byagreement”inseventeenth-

centuryEngland.’Intl.Journ.Hist.Archaeol.3:2,75-99.

Funari, F.1999, ‘HistoricalArchaeology fromaWorldPerspective,’ inFunari,Hall& Jones

1999,37-66.

Funari, P., Hall, M. & Jones, S. (eds) 1999, Historical Archaeology: back from the Edge,

London:Routledge.

Gaimster,D.1986, ‘Preliminaryobservationsonthepost-medievalpotteryfromtheAlter-

Marktsite,Duisburg,WestGermany,’Post-MedievalArchaeol20:1,19-30.

Gaimster,D.etal.1990,‘Thecontinentalstove-tilefragmentsfromStMaryGraces,London,

intheirBritishandEuropeancontext’,Post-MedievalArchaeol.24,1-49.

Games,A.2008,TheWebofEmpire:EnglishCosmopolitansinAgeofExpansion,1560-1660,

Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Games,A.2006,‘BeyondtheAtlantic:EnglishGlobetrottersandTransoceanicConnections,’

WilliamMaryQ.63:4,675-692.

Gosden,C.&Marshall,Y.1999,‘TheCulturalBiographyofObjects,’WorldArchaeology31:2,169-178.

Green,A.&Leech,R.(eds)2006,CitiesintheWorldSocietyforPostMedievalArchaeology

MonographSeries3,Leeds:Maney.

Hall,M.&Silliman,S.(eds)2006,HistoricalArchaeology,Oxford,Blackwell.

Hatfield,A.L.2004,AtlanticVirginia:Intercolonialrelationsintheseventeenthcentury,Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.

Hatfield,A.L.2003,‘SpanishColonizationLiterature,PowhatanGeographies,andEnglishPerceptionsofTsenacommacah/Virginia,’Journ.SouthernHist.49:2,245-282.

Helms, M. 1988, Ulysses’ Sail: An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge, and

GeographicalDistance,Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Hodder, I. 2012,Entangled: an archaeology of the relations between humans and things.

Wiley-Blackwell,Oxford.

Horning,A. 2016, ‘Transatlantic currents: Exploring thepast, present and futureof global

historicalarchaeology.’Hist.Archaeol.50:3.

Horning,A.2013,IrelandintheVirginianSea:ColonialismintheBritishAtlantic,ChapelHill:

UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress.

Horning,A. 2012a,Carrickfergus Excavations 1991-1995: TheClayPipeReport: StemBore

Analysis. Unpublished report submitted to the Northern Ireland Environment Agency,

Belfast.

Horning,A.2012b,Researchdesign:limitedtestinvestigationofhistoricstructuresatFC769

Arichonan,Knapdale.Unpublishedmanuscript,submittedtoForestryCommissionScotland.

Horning, A. 2006a, ‘Archaeology and the Construction of America’s Jamestown,’ Post-

MedievalArchaeol.40:1,1-27.

Horning, A. 2006b, ‘English Towns on the Periphery: Seventeenth-Century Town

DevelopmentinUlsterandtheChesapeake,’inGreen&Leech2006,61-82.

Horning,A.&Palmer,M.(eds)2009,InCrossingPathsorSharingTracks:FutureDirections

in the Archaeological Study of Post-1550 Britain and Ireland, Woodbridge: Boydell and

Brewer.

Hoskins,J.1998,BiographicalObjects,London:Routledge.

James,H.2003,MedievalandlaterLandscapeandSettlementinMid-ArgyllandKnapdale.

GUARDProjectReport1416,1446&1447,Unpublishedmss,GUARD,UniversityofGlasgow.

Johnson, M. 2006, ‘The Tide Reversed: Prospects and Potentials for a Postcolonial

ArchaeologyofEurope,’inHall&Silliman2006,313-331.

Johnson,M.1999, ‘TheNewPost-MedievalArchaeology,’ inOldandNewWorldsG.Egan

andR.L.Michael,editors,pp.17-22.Oxford:Oxbow.

Johnson,M.1996,AnArchaeologyofCapitalism,Oxford:Blackwell.

Killock, D. et al. 2005, ‘Pottery as plunder: a 17th-century maritime site in Limehouse,

London’,Post-MedievalArchaeol.39,1-91.

Kopytoff,I.1986,‘TheCulturalBiographyofThings:CommoditizationasProcess,’inAppadurai1986,64-91.

Leone,M.2005,TheArchaeologyofLibertyinanAmericanCapital,Berkely:Universityof

CaliforniaPress.

Leone,M.&Knauf,J.2015,HistoricalArchaeologiesofCapitalism,NewYork:Springer.

Lucas,G.2006,AnArchaeologyofColonialidentity:PowerandCultureintheDewarsValley,

SouthAfrica,NewYork:Springer.

Lucas,R.1998,‘DutchpantilesinthecountyofNorfolk:architectureandinternationaltrade

inthe17thand18thcenturies’,Post-MedievalArchaeol.32,75-94.

McGhee,F.2007,‘MaritimearchaeologyandtheAfricanDiaspora,’inOgundiran&Falola

2007,384-394.AkinwumiOgundiranandToyinFalola(eds.)ArchaeologyofAtlanticAfrica.

384-394.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress

McGhee,Fred1998,‘Towardapostcolonial,nauticalarchaeology’Assemblage3.

http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/3/3mcghee.htm

McFarlane,H2004,Arichonan:AHighlandClearanceRecorded,Indiana:Authorhouse.

Macgregor, A. 2007, Curiosity and Enlightenment: collectors and collections from the

sixteenthtothenineteenthcentury,NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.

Matthews,C.2010,TheArchaeologyofAmericanCapitalism,Gainseville:Universityof

FloridaPress.

Mehler,N.&Gardiner,M.2013,‘OntheVergeofColonialism:EnglishandHanseaticTrade

intheNorthAtlanticIslands.’InPope&Lewis2013,1-13.

Miller,D.2010,Stuff,Cambridge:PolityPress.

Miller,D.2005,Materiality,Durham:DurhamUniversityPress.

Miller,D.1987,MaterialCultureandMassConsumption,Oxford:Blackwell.

Mitchell,A.1881,ThePastinthePresent:WhatisCivilization?NewYork:Harper.

Mizoguchi, K. 2010, ‘The Colonial Experience of the Uncolonized and the Colonized,’

Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology, Jane Lydon and Uzma Rizvi, editors, pp. 81-91.

Springer,NewYork.

Moore,K.&Lewis,D.2009,TheOriginsofGlobalization,NewYork:Routledge.

Morley,N.2011,TheOriginsofGlobalization(review).EnterpriseandSociety12:1,233-235.

Moshenska,G.2014,TheArchaeologyof(flash)Memory.Post-Med.Arch.48:1,255-259.

Mrozowski, S. 2014, Imagining an Archaeology of the Future: Capitalism and Colonialism

PastandPresent,InternationalJourn.Hist.Archaeol.18,340-360.

Mrozowski,S.1999,ColonizationandtheCommodificationofNature.InternationalJournal

ofHistoricalArchaeology3:3,153-66.

Muldrew,C.1993,‘Interpretingthemarket:theethicsofcreditandcommunityrelationsin

earlymodernEngland’,Soc.History18,163–83.

Newman, R. 2005, ‘Farmers and Fields: Developing a Research Agenda for Post-Medieval

AgrarianSocietyandLandscape.’Post-MedievalArchaeol.39:2,205-214.

Nordin, J. 2013, ‘The Centre of the World: The material construction of Eurocentric

domination and hybridity in a Scandinavian 17th-century context,’ Journ. Material Cult.

18:2,189-209.

Nordin,J.2012,’EmbodiedColonialism:theCulturalMeaningofSilverinaSwedishcolonial

contextintheSeventeenthCentury,’Post-MedievalArchaeol.46:1,143-165.

Ohlsen,B.2010,InDefenseofThings:ArchaeologyandtheOntologyofObjects,NewYork,

Altamira.

O’Keeffe, J. 2008, The Archaeology of the Later Historical Cultural Landscape in Northern

Ireland: Developing Historic Landscape Investigation for the Management of the

ArchaeologicalResource:ACaseStudyof theArds,CountyDown.UniversityofUlsterPhD

thesis.

OrserC.2010,Twenty-firstcenturyhistoricalarchaeology,Journ.Archaeol.Res.18,111-150.

Orser,C.1996,HistoricalArchaeologyoftheModernWorld,NewYork:Springer.

M.ÓSiochrú,M.&ÓCiardha,E.(eds)2012,ThePlantationofUlster:ideologyandpractice,

ManchesterUniversityPress:Manchester.

Osterhammel,J.&Petersson,N.P.2005,Globalization:AShortHistory,Princeton:Princeton

UniversityPress.

Oswald,A.1969, ‘MarkedClayPipes fromPlymouth,Devon,’Post-MedievalArchaeol.3:1,

122-142.

Pope,P.&Lewis-Simpson,S.(eds)2013,ExploringAtlanticTransitionsWoodbridge:Boydell

&Brewer.

Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland 1992 Argyll: An

Inventoryof theMonumentsVol7Mid-ArgyllandCowallMedievalandLaterMonuments,

Edinburgh:HMSO.

Schmidt,P.&Mrozowski,S.(ed).2013,TheDeathofPrehistory,Oxford:OxfordUniversity

Press.

Schmidt,P.&Walz,J.2007,SilencesandMentionsinHistoryMaking,Hist.Archaeol.41:4,

129-146.

Scholte,J.2000,Globalization:ACriticalIntroduction,NewYork:St.Martin'sPress.

Schweickart, E. 2014, ‘Ideologiesof consumption: colonialismand the commodificationof

goods in 18th-century Virginian and Lowland Scottish rural households’, Post-Medieval

Archaeol.48,398-411.

Shackel,P.&B.Little(eds)1994,HistoricalArchaeologyoftheChesapeake,WashingtonDC:

SmithsonianInstitution.

Sikes, K. 2008, Stars as Social Space? Contextualising seventeenth-century Chesapeake

pipes.Post-MedievalArchaeology42:1,75-103.

Smith,A.2005,Oftheaccumulationofcapital,orofproductiveandunproductivelabor,in

Edelman&Haugerud2005,87-90.

Steger, M.B. (ed.) 2010, The Greatest Hits: A Global Studies Reader, Oxford: Oxford

UniversityPress.

Steger,M.B.2013,Globalization:AVeryShortIntroduction,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Straube, B. 2013, ‘The Geoff Egan Memorial Lecture 2012: Surprises from the Soil

Archaeological Discoveries from England’s First Successful Transatlantic Colony at

Jamestown.’Post-MedievalArchaeol.47:2,263-280.

Svizzero,S.&Tisdell,C.2014, ‘Inequalityandwealthcreation inancienthistory:Malthus’

theoryreconsidered,’Interdiscip.App.Econ.Sociol.7,222-239.

Tait,H.&Cherry,J.1978,‘ExcavationsatLongtonPorcelainFactory,Part1,’Post-MedievalArchaeology12,1-29.

Tarlow, S. 2007, The Archaeology of Improvement in Britain, 1750-1850, Camridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress.

Taussig,M.1993.MimesisandAlterity:AParticularHistoryoftheSenses.NewYork,NY:

Routledge.

Turpin,A. 2015, The valueof a collection; collectingpractices in earlymodern Europe, in

Conceptsofvalue inEuropeanmaterialculture1500-1900,BertdeMunckandDriesLyna,

editors,pp.255-284.Farnham:Ashgate.

Tracey,R.2015,‘NodesandmodesofidentityinearlymodernIreland:materialcultureand

cultural entanglements in 17th-century Carrickfergus,’ Glasgow: European Association of

ArchaeologistsConferencepaper.

Verhaeghe, F. 1997, ‘The Archaeology of Transition: a Continental View,’ in Gaimster &

Stamper1997,25-44.

Watney,B.1993,‘ExcavationsattheLongtonPorcelainManufactory,PartIII:theporcelain

andotherceramicfinds,’Post-Medievalarchaeology27,57-109.

Wilkie, L.&Bartoy, K. 2000, ‘A Critical ArchaeologyRevisited,’CurrentAnthro.41:5, 747-

777.

Wilson,R.J.2008,‘TheMysticalCharacterofCommodities’:theConsumerSocietyin18th-

CenturyEngland,Post-MedievalArch.42:1,144-156.

Wrathmell, S. 1980, ‘Village depopulation in the 17th and 18th centuries: Examples from

Northumberland,’Post-MedievalArchaeology14,113-126.

Wurst,L.1999,Internalizingclassinhistoricalarchaeology,Hist.Archaeol.33:1,7–21

Young,R.&Fazeli,H.2013,WomenandClassinLandlordVillagesoftheTehranplain,Iran.

Hist.Archaeol.47:2,76-98.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

WearegratefultoAlasdairBrooksandtheeditorialteamofPost-MedievalArchaeologyfor

approachingustowritethisarticletogether,andespeciallyforthehelpfulcommentsofthe

anonymousreviewersinstrengtheningthefinalarticle.

LISTOFFIGURES

Figure1:RemainsoftheclearedtownshipofArichonan,Knapdale(A.Horning)

Figure2:DunluceCastle,Co.Antrim(A.Horning)

Figure3:Locally-madeChesapeakepipewithstarmotif(A.Horning)

1Johnson1999;Tarlow2007,7-92Eg.Wurst1999.SeeLeoneandKaupf2015;alsoLeone2005andMatthews2010.3Eg.Gaimster1986citesMarcBlochbutdoesnotdirectlydiscusscapitalism4Butler1967,1-2.5LittleremainsofWedgwood’sEtruriafactory,butfollowinganextensivecampaignbytheArtFundthearchivesofhisindustryandtheceramiccollectionswererecentlypurchasedandprotectedfromthreateneddispersal.TheonlysurvivaloftheEtruriafactoryisoneofthetworoundhouseswhichonceflankedthesymmetricalfaçadeofthestructure.ThecollectionsthemselvesarenowonpublicdisplayasofJuly2015.Seehttp://www.savewedgwood.org/;TaitandCherry1978;BarkerandHorton1999;BrooksandRodriquez2012,DawsonandKent2008,Watney1993.6Eg.AtkinsonandOswald1972,BelcherandJarret1971.7Oswald1969,126.8Johnson2006,318.9ThetraditionalNorthAmericandefinitionofhistoricalarchaeologyaspost-datingtheColumbianvoyagesisgivenbyJamesDeetz1997,5,as‘thearchaeologyofthespreadofEuropeanculturethroughouttheworldsincethefifteenthcenturyanditsimpactonindigenouspeoples’.10FromanorthernEuropeanperspective,suchstudiesincludeworkbyJonasNordin2012examiningtheimpactofSwedishcolonialengagementsonthehomeland.Increasingly,studiesofSpanishcolonialismintheNewWorldarealsoaddressingtheinfluenceofindigenouspracticesoncolonialsociety,forexamplePerCornell’s2015considerationoftheformativeimpactoftheAzteccityofTenochtitlanonthesubsequentlayoutofSpanishAmericancolonialtowns.InBritishcolonialNorthAmerica,anotherexamplewouldbetherecognitionthataPowhatanculturalgeographyineffectdeterminedtheextentofVirginiacolonialsettlementforacentury.SeeHatfield2003,2004anddiscussioninHorning2013,25-36,159.11ForacriticalconsiderationoftheImprovementethic,seeTarlow2007.12Newman2005.13Wrathmell1980.14Tarlow2007,16.15James2003;McFarlane2004;Horning2012b;RCAHM1992.

16Frazer1999;Symonds1999;Orser1996.Numerousauthorshaveraisedconcernsaboutthepotentiallytotalisingnatureofnarrativesofcapitalismemployedinhistoricalarchaeology,includingPedroFunari1999,LaurieWilkieandKevinBartoy2000,GavinLucas2006.SeediscussioninHorning2011,andinCroucherandWeiss2011.17Dalglish2005,262.18Johnson1993;1996.19Crawford1969.20Mitchell188121Breen201222Mrozowski1999;Horning2006aandb.23Breen2012,Horning2013.24SeeMrozowski2014foranextendeddiscussionofdoinghistorybackwardinrelationtointerpretationsofarchaeologyandcapitalism.FortheUlsterPlantationandtheArds,seeHorning2013;O’Keeffe2008.25Orser1996;CroucherandWeiss2011.26MehlerandGardiner201327Verhaeghe1997,28.28Bateman2004.29Bloch1953[1944].30EgFriedman1999andhis‘GoldenArches’theoryofinternationalrelations.31Scholte2000,15-1632Theliteratureonglobalizationisvastanddisparate.InfluentialworksoncontemporaryglobalizationincludeFriedman1999whileconsiderationsofthedeeperrootsofglobalizationcanbefoundinMooreandLewis2009andChandra2007.UsefuloverviewsofglobalizationincludeScholte2005,OsterhammelandPetersson2005,andSteger2010;whileCooper2001,2008explicitlyconsiderstheinterrelationshipofcolonialismandglobalisation.33MooreandLewis2009,4-7.ScholarsoftheancientworldhaveobjectedthewaysinwhichMooreandLewisimposecontemporarytermssuchas‘chiefexecutive’uponpasteconomicroles,seeingtheeffortasfundamentallyahistoricalandanendeavourto‘modernize’thepast.SeeforexampleMorley2011.34Wallerstein1974.AsnotedbyJohnsonin2006that‘theworkofWallersteinonworldsystemstheory….hasnothadanydiscernibleeffectonEuropeanhistoricalarchaeology.’35Pendery1999,74.36Moussette2009,43.37Forselectedexamplesofhowarchaeologistsarechallengingassumptionsaboutonesidedcolonialequations,seeSchmidtandWalz2007,seealsocontributionsinSchmidtandMrozowski2013,andinFerris,HarrisonandWilcox2014.38Helms1988,2-33.39Helms1988,18-19.40Killocketal.2005,6-16.41Forobjectbiography,seeGosdenandMarshall1999;Kopytoff1986,Apparadurai1986,Hoskins1998.42Aconsiderablebodyofliteratureexistsexploringtheactivenatureofobjectsandhowobjectsbecomethings.SeeOlsen2010foranexplicationofthingtheory,andHodder2012ontheentanglementofpeopleandthings.43Straube2013.FortheJamestownexcavationsmoregenerally,seecontributionsinPost-MedievalArchaeologyvolume40/1,2006.44BuildingonTaussig’s1993conceptualisationofmimesis.45Turpin2015,265-267;seealsoMacgregor2007.Powhatan’smantleconsistsofconstructedoffourdeerskinsdecoratedwithshellsthatdepictahuman,twoanimals,andoverthirtycircles(generallyinterpretedasthepoliticalunitswithintheparamountchiefdom);Kopytoff1986.46Cooper2005,93.47Sikes2008.48Horning2012a;Tracey2015.49Gaimsteretal.1990,15-16.50Lucas1998,76-80.51Bloice1971,150-151.52AsdiscussedexplicitlybyMaxineBerg2007,44-45.SeealsoBarker1999.

53TheseminalanthropologicaldiscussionofconsumptionremainsDouglasandIsherwood’s1979studyTheWorldofGoodswhichbroughttogethereconomicandculturalperspectivesonconsumption.Forpost-medievalEurope,Bourdieu’sclassicworkDistinctionremainsinfluentialinhisexplorationoftheentanglementofconsumptionandelitepower,whiledeVries’morepositivereadontheengagementofallsocialclasseswithconsumptionissympathetictotheperspectiveofDanielMiller(1987,2005,2010)regardingtheactiveabilityofindividualstoemployobjectsinidentity-making.54Berg2007,40-42;deVries2008,44-4555ForexampleseetheindividualcontributionsinDeMunckandLyna2014.56deVries2008,5557Forexample,Miller1987.58SeeDixon2011;Moshenska2014.59Wilson2008,152.60SeeCrosby1972;2004forexplicationoftheColumbianExchange.JaredDiamond’scontroversial1999study,Guns,Germs,andSteelhasbeenreadilypickedupandcitedbyglobalizationscholars(egseeSteger2013)butwewouldargueitisfartoodeterministicinitsportrayaloftheinfluenceoftheColumbianExchange.61Boivinetal.2012,463.62SvizzeroandTisdell2015,13.63ThispointwasalsomadestronglybyMatthewJohnson2006,324-325,butthesituationintermsofresearchwithintheUnitedKingdomhasnotsignificantlychanged.64Forexample,the2011specialissueofthejournal(Post-MedievalArchaeologyvolume45/1)dedicatedtoBermudaincludesseveralarticleswhichaddressslavery.Crewe2012considersthemeaningofabolitionistmessagesonceramicsinnineteenth-centurySheffield.65Webster2015.ThisstudyispartofalargerresearchprojectexploringthearchaeologyoftheAtlanticslavetrade,andcomplementstherecentshiftinmaritimearchaeologytowardsaddressingthesalvetradeanditsmaterialsignaturesfollowingonfromacritiqueleviedbyFredMcGheein1998and2007.SeealsoFlatman2003.66Mrozowski2010,119.67Brown;Bowen1994;BainandPrevost.28.68Fothergill2014.69Armitage1981;Games2006,2008.70Hickman2014.71Brooks2009.72Schweickart2014,40773Cooper2001,20674Millar2001,258;BrooksandRodriguez2012,84.MatthewJohnson2006,318,alsoaddressestheissueofscaleinpost-medievalarchaeology.75Crossley1967,6676Muldrew1993,177.77Smith2005,8778ComaroffandComaroff2005,17879Eg.Belford201080Dixon2011.81Scholte2000,47-48;Graves-Brown2013,25282Funari,YoungandFazzeli,Mizoguchi2010,Horning2016.